The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

eklavya wrote:Food, healthcare and education all cost money. If it is not the beneficiary's money, it is someone else's money;

It can be anyone's money. It can, as you say, be the Kerala/Cuba model. Or the ancient Ayurvedic model. And with that "other people's money" the "poor" can get healthcare, food and education. Fine. If other people provide the money all talk of the poor "earning" a dollar a day, 2 dollars a day is nonsense. The money is coming from somewhere else. The poor do not need to be made wealthy. It will not matter whether they earn 1 or 2 dollars a day. The only reason for giving money to poor is for them to become consumers, or to exchange what they have now (eg land) for money. They need money to join a market economy. Not for food or health or education.

Why should the poor get more money simply to join a market economy? So that someone else higher up in the chain makes more money and finds more "poor people" who can be given money to come into the market economy. Ultimately the people at the apex of the chain are the ones who gain the most.

ravi_g wrote:A key western proposition/demand is that life is about 'development' vs. everything else. Off course, Development is something only they can define since only they are developed. Thus anything that is not about 'Development' is against poverty and hence a color revolution is necessary (off course with dollops of suavity - I plead guilty of simplifying the complex art).

The word "develop" itself, is an English word like the words religion and history.

To "develop" means to go from a "lesser, worse state" to a "greater, better state". That is the definition.

When people coined the word "developed countries", they meant "greater, better" countries, and underdeveloped countries have to go from "lesser, worse state" to "greater, better state". For that they must emulate and follow the lead of the west.

Everything about development in the western way is not good or great. But once you grab the word and label it, like "religion of peace", everyone assumes that it is all good. Because the west is "developed" it is all good. The west is wealthy. That is good. the wealthier the better. Hence the foreskin-to-top of balls metrics like "trillion dollar economy" etc

How poor can a man get? Zero money sounds like rock bottom, but debt is worse. But zero money and debt are quantifiable metrics. How does one measure the upper limit wealth in money? What is the limit of financial wealth? There is none. It is an unquantifiable goal. One can always find a bigger number than the last big number.

And the old question: how much money does a human need? This is not a social or financial question. It is a philosophical one. Actually man can survive on zero money, and from the Hindu (and Jain and Buddhist viewpoints) zero money is an attainable goal en route to reaching goals that cannot be attained with money. It is only when wealth is a social or financial issue does zero money become a liability. With money being fungible - i.e convertible into any material goods, those who possess the most money and/or material goods always control the flow of money - which is always towards them, because they can provide money or goods as necessary. But that money flow cannot work if there are people with no money, or a people who have values that put monetary/financial wealth on a lower plane than spiritual attainments without money.

In India spiritual attainment without money is translated as wealth, but that is of no use to a material goods driven market economy. Financially poor but happy people are a disaster for people who depend on market economies and set no upper limit on wealth. It becomes vitally important to define people as poor and wealthy and define them by their material possessions. Only that can drive a market economy.

But that does not mean that wealth was never valued in India. There have always been supremely wealthy, supremely greedy wealthy people in India. But anyone who reads about the dharmic duties of the wealthy - be they kshatriya or vysya - there is a demand for sacrifice and charity. There is a moral upper limit on wealth - some of which must always be simply given away. Brahmins of course were not supposed to be wealthy - they could accept wealth, but had to give it away and not cling on to it. Someone mentioned Bill Gates earlier in this thread. Bill Gates is a good example of a man who has set an upper limit for his own wealth. But thousands of people set far lower limits on their wealth before they start giving it away. It is the psychological model of having more, and more and more wealth as an ideal that is flawed.

Wealth for all, implemented as "no poverty" should never be an ideal, but it is pushed as a "universal idea". The universal idea should be charity and a limit on wealth. The western tendency is to define lack of money as poverty and by forcing the entire nation to join a market driven economy, the people without money who used to survive previously, suddenly find themselves needing money for basic life necessities - which they never needed before. That creates poverty.

This new "Created poverty" then justifies the money lending banks (world bank, IMF) to remove that poverty. Repayment of that lent money has to be done by the poor and others by giving their time and effort for very low pay and the money they earn goes back into the pockets of the people who created the poverty using the market economy model. The work that Indians and other third worlders do can never be valued higher, because if it is valued higher, the poor cannot pay and the economy won't run. And because the value of work is low, the Indian will always remain poorer than the richer nation. The Indian doctor will always earn 1/50th of the American doctor for the same consultation. It cannot change.

shiv wrote:The western tendency is to define lack of money as poverty and by forcing the entire nation to join a market driven economy, the people without money who used to survive previously, suddenly find themselves needing money for basic life necessities - which they never needed before. That creates poverty.

Who and where are these people who used to previously survive without money? Are you talking about a few people living on charitable donations or are you talking about entire countries and towns?

The market economy was alive and well in India before the British/Europeans set one foot on this land, and this economy was highly productive and generated great wealth for its inhabitants.

India was impoverished not by some change of definition or values, but by systematic economic, social and political oppression lasting centuries. Taxes collected from the Indian people were used to enrich Europeans and enhance their power. The terms of trade were distorted to favour European/British exports and industry, and to cripple industrial activity within India.

We cannot wish away our poverty by changing a few definitions and values. This poverty is real and manifest as represented by access to food, clean water, education, healthcare, shelter, etc. The requirement for these basic needs is not a western invention, it is something any human being would want and require.

shiv wrote:This new "Created poverty" then justifies the money lending banks (world bank, IMF) to remove that poverty. Repayment of that lent money has to be done by the poor and others by giving their time and effort for very low pay and the money they earn goes back into the pockets of the people who created the poverty using the market economy model.

Of India's total external debt of ca. $441bn as of 31-3-2014, ca. $83bn was owed to the multilateral and bilateral development agencies and the IMF, and ca. $104bn comprised of NRI deposits. See table 2.4 on page 7:

The central government debt/GDP ratio is ca 50% (it has fallen significantly in the Manmohan Singh years) i.e. with the India economy approaching $2tn GDP, central government debt is approaching $1tn, of which less than 10% is owed to the WB/IMF/DFIs. Most of the central government borrowing is in domestic markets i.e. from the public sector banks.

Has all this borrowed money been spent productively? Of course it has not; a goodly portion has been looted by our politicians, civil servants, industrialists, gangsters and assorted cronies. And this is where good governance and parivartan comes in, where the people yearn for good roads, schools, health centres, electricity, clean water, etc. and indeed for well paid secure jobs.

shiv wrote:The work that Indians and other third worlders do can never be valued higher, because if it is valued higher, the poor cannot pay and the economy won't run. And because the value of work is low, the Indian will always remain poorer than the richer nation. The Indian doctor will always earn 1/50th of the American doctor for the same consultation. It cannot change.

That is western universalism for you

The same consultation in Mumbai costs 10x what it costs in Bihar. There is no reason why UP, Bihar, MP, Orissa, and Jharkhand cannot be as well off as Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Tamil Nadu and Haryana. We can achieve a huge increase in wealth and welfare within India by following successful models of governance within India.

I was going to write a long winded post on 'modern' poverty : i.e. created by industrialization. vs the 'indic' poverty.

Your post does a good job . 'Modern' poverty is a result of industrialization and inflation. The economic nature of Indic poverty is a completely different kind, i.e. if one uses a "modern" economic term to explain it: It was due limited/zero inflation back in the day.

For example: Lets say there is drought/famine in the US: You will see a bunch of bills from the hills taking their guns and going on a loot marathon. In India there were droughts and famines for ages (one every two years with an average of 1 - 2 million deaths in the Brishit victorian era) , and if one happens today we will see people bearing it and dying. It may seem "counter intuitive" and if it does so, you are thinking from a WU point of view.

shiv wrote:Pakistan has all the fissures that the British identified in India when they said India would not last long. Pakistanis agreed with and echoed all those things said about India. It is the bottom-up unifying culture of India where fissures are resolved at ground level that actually unites India. Democracy simply assists the process. Imposed democracy is a top-down system and cannot work unless ground level consensus can happen.

Top down legal systems (like Islam, Christianity other fascist doctrines, dictatorships) cannot forcibly unite people from above. I would judge that Pakistanis, on the ground, are still like Indians. They will solve their differences and disputes at ground level and simply get along, but top down doctrines like Islam are actually a hindrance.

Pakistan will have to discard Islam or aspects of Islam to unite. Islam only divides. it cannot unite diverse culture. Islam is a mono-culture because it dictates and imposes rigid restrictions on all aspect of culture like language, habits, dress, cuisine and art. I write this here so Paki lurkers (the 1% who can read) can read and get angry and deny this without having the ability to come and argue on here, but those are the facts. Anger won't change facts

This is what Rajiv Malhotra calls "Integral Unity" of Dharmic systems which minimizes fissures versus "Synthetic Unity" of Abrahamic systems, where the top-down enforcement causes an uncomfortable alliance at best, i.e. weld-lines. Its also why we are good at being garland-makers, while Abrahamics are good at being charcoal-burners (advice to Yudhishtir)

eklavya wrote:Who and where are these people who used to previously survive without money? Are you talking about a few people living on charitable donations or are you talking about entire countries and towns?

The market economy was alive and well in India before the British/Europeans set one foot on this land, and this economy was highly productive and generated great wealth for its inhabitants.

Nice. In 2014, India has a higher GDP and a higher average income than in 1947. And yet, in 2014, India has more poor than in 1947. How come the "market economy" worked in the past and has failed now?

eklavya wrote:We cannot wish away our poverty by changing a few definitions and values. This poverty is real and manifest as represented by access to food, clean water, education, healthcare, shelter, etc. The requirement for these basic needs is not a western invention, it is something any human being would want and require.

Disease cannot be wished away, but it also cannot be treated by quackery. Poverty cannot be wished away but it cannot be treated by defining it as 1 dollar or 2 dollars a day and saying "They need more money". If you look at this "they need more money" idea with honesty, you find that it is just another definition. And it's not working

eklavya wrote:The same consultation in Mumbai costs 10x what it costs in Bihar. There is no reason why UP, Bihar, MP, Orissa, and Jharkhand cannot be as well off as Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Tamil Nadu and Haryana. We can achieve a huge increase in wealth and welfare within India by following successful models of governance within India.

Stuff the west ...

The question is, should the consultation fee go up in Bihar or go down in Mumbai?

If it goes down, medicine will not be an attractive profession. It will never go down particularly because the doctor's fee is only a small proportion of healthcare - and the rest of modern healthcare is exorbitant and unsustainable. But yet you (like others) talk of "wealth increases". The Bihar doctor wants his fee to go the Mumbai way. The Mumbai doctor wants his fees to become like the New York doctor. And yet, in New York, universal health care is a mirage. The US is no closer to universal affordable healthcare than India.

It's the system that is the problem and yet you, like everyone else repose your faith in the system and talk about "increasing wealth" Increasing wealth is not removing poverty or creating universal healthcare. But someone is getting richer. The system is not working and is not designed to work the way you have been taught to imagine.

In fact you are reiterating the fact that you hold the same "set-in-stone" beliefs and cliches that I pointed out earlier:

Basically there is a systemic flaw that is never going to make "equality" and "rights for all" actually work. And that systemic flaw is deliberately maintained while we buffoons use all the idiot-buzzwords like "equality", "rights" blah blah.

The global system is only about keeping the very wealthy of the west very wealthy. "Universalism" - "health for all", "rights for all' "wealth for all", "dignity for all", "jobs for all" is complete bullshit. It ain't ever going to happen. We have all simply been brainwashed into thinking that these are "universal ideals" that we should all strive for. They are not. They are simply buzzwords that keep people doing things that are utterly useless.

LokeshC wrote:For example: Lets say there is drought/famine in the US: You will see a bunch of bills from the hills taking their guns and going on a loot marathon. In India there were droughts and famines for ages (one every two years with an average of 1 - 2 million deaths in the Brishit victorian era) , and if one happens today we will see people bearing it and dying. It may seem "counter intuitive" and if it does so, you are thinking from a WU point of view.

There is a topic that fascinates me - as a work of fiction. the last time I brought it up - it was dismissed

What would the US look like as a failing state?

The answers I get are "The US is unlikely to fail for a very long time" That is not an answer. It is a sidestepping of the question.

If the perpetual "creation of wealth" for everyone is a mirage and only the wealthiest benefit from that while poverty and want continue, then ultimately, the wealthiest are going to have to be brought down, gradually (or suddenly) from their wealthy status. How would they react, and how would the less wealthy who own guns and live around them react?

If you look at it from a "modern" economics point of view: Former mass murderers (aka colonialists) are all failing in one way or the other: Spain, Portugal and even Japan or are just stagnating and will do so for a long long time. Out of that the Portuguese decline is the most happy for me as they have a direct traceable impact on my ancestors trajectory through India, those guys should have been systematically and summarily executed when we walked over into Goa, Daman and Diu but we did not (we are Indic ).

However even though these rogue nations will be in perpetual decline, their population also correspondingly drops. So there is no chance of mass violence like in the case of highly populated countries that go south (Greece, Argentina etc).

US is the only country that has slightly above replacement TFR in the "modern developed" countries, hence its unlikely that the US will have low population when it fails. Hence, If the US fails, i.e. fails to balance its budget and actually care about its poor. You are going to see violence that will make the death toll of ISIS look like kindergarteners exercise (it probably wont be as horrifically violent as ISIS, they do take the cake for that).

I wish I was kidding and was wearing a tin foil. Just look at the daily occurances with the white-power/gun-ownership movement in Midwest (Montana, Idaho, Utah, West Virginia etc) in the US and you will know what kind of anger and desperation is seething from within. Since I am invested here, I just hope that "something" changes before things get to a boiling point .

LokeshC wrote:US is the only country that has slightly above replacement TFR in the "modern developed" countries, hence its unlikely that the US will have low population when it fails. Hence, If the US fails, i.e. fails to balance its budget and actually care about its poor. You are going to see violence that will make the death toll of ISIS look like kindergarteners exercise (it probably wont be as horrifically violent as ISIS, they do take the cake for that).

I believe the US will blame any decline on some other country and use its military power to "set that other nation right". The only nations that will be able to resist the US somewhat are those that have nuclear weapons to threaten a warmongering US elite.

^^^ The US is already doing that. Just like the old Roman Emperors who distracted their population by holding Gladiator death matches when faced with political/economical crises, the US empire will declare war on one part of the world or the other when there is an internal crises do achieve the same distraction. Not unlike bakis sending Jeehadis on us.

In the US, when 2008 collapse started getting real bad, all of a sudden there was a war cry to "finish off the business with Eye-Ran". That is a pattern, and it is almost certainly bound to repeat.

Which is why we (or any country serious about its future) should not only have barely enough credible deterrent for our current foes, but must focus on increasing them in complete secrecy so that it can be declared when the times get ominous. Any country serious about its future has to do the same so that big brotha is somewhat discouraged trying to drag them into war of any kind. It is therefore extremely critical that we develop MIRVs/MARVs/ICBMs/SSBN/SSGN/Aircraft Carriers/Anti Sat weapons/Megaton Thermonukes/ABM etc an order of magnitude more than what we have. The cost for Unkil or anyone dreaming to try anything remotely funny with India has to be made extremely high.

The world is going to be an interesting place. China and Russia will make Unkil go irrational... sooner or later. We better be prepared.

By the way the thing is, as far as Nukes go we cannot go the Indic way. Indic/Dharmic way is good when you do it within India. However we cannot be "dharmic" in the middle of adharmic but extremely powerful forces such as unkil. We have to work in their frame of mind and deliver the message in their language.

It was only during the British times that India experienced a drought every year. During the previous 5000 years, India experienced only 4 droughts - admittedly these were long droughts (several decades to centuries), but they were global droughts and we could not do anything about them. It was the British who brought genocide as government policy into India.

LokeshC wrote:For example: Lets say there is drought/famine in the US: You will see a bunch of bills from the hills taking their guns and going on a loot marathon. In India there were droughts and famines for ages (one every two years with an average of 1 - 2 million deaths in the Brishit victorian era) , and if one happens today we will see people bearing it and dying. It may seem "counter intuitive" and if it does so, you are thinking from a WU point of view.

There is a topic that fascinates me - as a work of fiction. the last time I brought it up - it was dismissed

What would the US look like as a failing state?

The answers I get are "The US is unlikely to fail for a very long time" That is not an answer. It is a sidestepping of the question.

If the perpetual "creation of wealth" for everyone is a mirage and only the wealthiest benefit from that while poverty and want continue, then ultimately, the wealthiest are going to have to be brought down, gradually (or suddenly) from their wealthy status. How would they react, and how would the less wealthy who own guns and live around them react?

The current financial 'growth' is centered around a few centers - NY and California.

What are the defining characteristics of US society that is not part of the economic miracle currently underway - drugs, guns, and Xism. Actually, there are two combinations of these three factors:1. Drugs and guns (Whites are the main consumers)2. Xism and guns (Bible belt)

And finally, the fourth grouping is the resource extraction centers - Texas, etc

These are the four Socio-economic groups that exist. The schisms will likely happen between them. They were being held together by the glue of shared prosperity.

Another interesting factor that US has is the fact that it has a lot of natural resources. This will prevent the control of population by, say, restricting food supply - as they can always grow their own. As far as guns are concerned, although their government is trying very hard to control guns - US population has the required skills, tools, and raw material to make weapons on their own. So food and weapons control are not likely to work in America.

In broad terms, what we can say is that America will first try to defend their existing concentrations of prosperity while trying to oppress the masses in the inner areas. One of the first signs of this will be an internal passport system, where people will need to get permission to enter cities. Controlling the physical movement of people is the best way to deny them economic opportunities to enforce inequality.

Once that happens, the internal areas will be ruled by force. So there will be localized armed conflicts between militias and government personnel. This will lead to militias coalescing around localized identities.

These localized identities will be one of the four I mentioned earlier:1. Cities (isolated prosperity centers, with massive slums) - like Rio2. Drugs and guns (lawless areas that are run by drug mafias)3. Xism and guns (lawless areas that are run by the Church)4. Resource extraction centers (centers that produce raw materials that are used by the prosperous cities)

So US will look like a lawless Brazil. In other words, it will begin to look more and more like Columbia

abhischekcc wrote:Another interesting factor that US has is the fact that it has a lot of natural resources. This will prevent the control of population by, say, restricting food supply - as they can always grow their own. As far as guns are concerned, although their government is trying very hard to control guns - US population has the required skills, tools, and raw material to make weapons on their own. So food and weapons control are not likely to work in America.

In broad terms, what we can say is that America will first try to defend their existing concentrations of prosperity while trying to oppress the masses in the inner areas.

Yes, but in Pakistan, the land is owned by the zamindars, and they have the gundas to enforce their control. So control of food is partially possible. I say partially because the population is heavily armed, and any attempt to seriously restrict food supply will probably lead to Najibullah-fication of many land owners.

Regarding US, if you look at the news, you will see a lot of events indicating that the breakdown is quite advanced. For example, the shooting of police personnel, the standoff at Bundy ranch, even the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement - are all indicators of the breakdown of the glue.

Poverty in the Indian context is a result of centralization and top down approach. It is based on a denial of even basic things by the elite.

There is no reason why Indian villages should not be as good or better than the cities. What they need is good roads, internet connectivity and some basic health and education infrastructure. In fact this is what the Modi govt is trying to do if you pay attention.

Btw I would not pay so much attention to the so called developed states in India. The figures are skewed by the central cities. I read somewhere that Mumbai generates half the GDP of Maharashtra. I suspect the same is true for Bangalore in KA and Kolkata in WB.

It was only during the British times that India experienced a drought every year. During the previous 5000 years, India experienced only 4 droughts - admittedly these were long droughts (several decades to centuries), but they were global droughts and we could not do anything about them. It was the British who brought genocide as government policy into India.

Yes, this was also mentioned in the video I linked earlier (that was not my point).

My point was, instead of the usual revolution against "authority" attitude that would result in a top-down approach of things, in the Indic scenarios, such revolutions were largely needless or did not occur because in our entire civilizational memory such top down systems were absent.

A mere drought could cause the French Revolution, but a famine in India caused people accepting their fate and resigning to their deaths, since the fact that the Brishits were top down had not really sunk in to a large majority Indians.

That our administration is top down has not sunk in to a majority of Indians to this day, and we wonder why the "chalta hai attitude" etc.

In Hindu system, who runs the government is an incidental thing - it can be one king or another, it does not matter. Because the polity that runs the country is based on Hinduism, and that creates the balance between the various parts of society. No segment of society can achieve absolute power.

This is where western and Islamic societies are imbalanced - the mullah has too much control over muslim masses; the west has seen internecine wars between kings and the church for this very source of power.

Some of the scenarios you guys talk about is what the west itself sees and agrees with. Witness their, end of worlds/hell on earth, kind of popular cinemas. And they are willing to put time, money and brainspace on such things. This is their ultimate claim as a culture.

Frankly speaking, I differ again. This is just their tall-talk to show at how they are indispensable. But my bet is they will not do anything to support their own grand-vision or to prevent their own darker-vision. Nobody lives their lives for a friggin advertisement. All across the world it is the same thing - every male desires Sunny Leone when unmarried, but wants to marry a more sane women, even if less of a looker and desires a proper mother for his kids, not a hex-machine. Hex machines (Jenna Jameson and JSF) is mere advertising, to capture the most vocal parts of the populations during their youthful prime, so they can in turn begin to heckle the more confident, more laid back kinds of their respective populations. All standard techniques. Most of their own, so called Alpha males and Alpha females already die childless and addicted anyway. I don't know if the fall for america would be fast or slow (cannot see into the future). But their claim about dark is just not dark enough.

Their real darkness is not going to come from the Russians or the Chinese fighting along small battlefronts, across yalu / in ukraine. It is going to come in an inevitable manner. Like for example the uptick in the Chinese and Indian economies post 1970 and the downtick in western economies post 1950. These changes in directions are despite everything west has done/can do to set things right for themselves and despite everything the turd world can do / has done to mess up their own prospects. Most people in both west and east are ok about these changes. They accept the inevitability. And any sudden change that will come (avoidable/unavoidable) will only come as part of this massive (also massively boring) inevitability. The sudden shocks (Black Mondays, if you may) if and when they come, do and will continue to serve only as a reminder about the un-ignorable part of the reality. Possibly also help people(s) reconcile with the inevitability. People still do not discuss at all about what it means to have a billion Hindus and a billion cheeni, working inter-se with a common mind and not agreeing with the west. All the gains for the west (or of its predecessors) came when these billions had communication constraints. When an army could arrive at the city gates before the will could be generated among the cities denizens to hit back. That communication limitation has already been addressed mostly. Perhaps that is why the west is reduced to using expats/fanbois, from various nations to subvert these nations (Iran, Cuba, Russia, India, China). West is today afraid that should they come forward to be counted, by mounting a direct assault, then it would lead to a revenge backlash that their children would not later be able to handle. Countries regularly hold out this threat of eternal opposition, to the west (every usage of religion in mid-east against US and every step up the nuke ladder by Chinese, Russians and Indians and even NoKo/Libyans/Iranian types, to be followed eventually by even the Japs and SoKo types). In any case you have to realize that in the longer term cycles of the world, the ascendancy of west is an exception not the rule.

..........................

Shiv ji, More differences.

Charity is not and cannot be the universal goal (Billwa bhaiya notwithstanding). Due to the fact that Indians have since earlier times established for themselves the rules that are basically in consonance with the evidence/real world/dharma, they only talk of Upkaaras (Up signifies little karya-kalap done by able people while living within their abilities towards completion of major karya-kalaps under the entreprise of other able people). Upkaaras are bridge loans between capable people (rich/poor). Charity is an overcorrection by a diseased mind that seeks poverty-porn as a rationale for its existence. If however, by charity you meant the trusteeship relation in the light of dharmic understanding of the world then I think we can rest assured because the part of the world that has escaped subversion, is upheld by those and that, which agree with this understanding of the dharmic shradha and seva bhaav. This part is not dependent on the trajectory of the contemporary world. The contemporary world with all its constituents (good bad ugly) is the kshetra for their efforts. A lower start would not deter and a higher end will not satisfy. It has more to do with the basic character/drives, of the individuals involved and their ability to key in their personal understandings, into what they believe actually supports them. Contemporary world as controlled by the west is an absolute and unequivocal dhakkan – saale garmi mein 18 degrees ke liye jite hain aur sardi mein 24 degrees ke liye, without ever questioning themselves about what their need really is.

IMF etc are not about interest collections. Had they been so, there are more than enough opportunities to make money on money. International banking is mostly about controls and subverting controls by creating fanbois in the targeted systems.

Western Universalism is the direct descendant of colonialism - in which the world order set during the colonial era was developed to suit the post colonial set up. The top-down systems and assumptions of what is universal are the same.

We have spent a lot of time on here analyzing the colonization of the Hindu mind in particular. But I think we risk remaining at GIGO level if we fail to analyze the impact that colonization had on the mass of the Islamic world. Britain dealt with Egypt exactly like it dealt with India and created the same structures and the same sickular DIEs. The rise of Islamism appear to be a reaction to WU.

To understand that I think we must look at how the Islamic mind was before colonization and what was wiped out. It is possible that Islamism today is the Islamic world trying to come to grips with WU.

When we in India fight with Islamism, it is useful to know what we are fighting. How much of the fight is between colonized minds and how much due to fundamental ideological differences. This is important because if we address Islamism the way the west does we may be scoring a goal for WU, against ourselves. We already tend to view ourselves the way the west views us. There is every possibility that we view Islam like the west does. What is the Indian view of Islam without a colonial/WU colour?

shiv wrote:When we in India fight with Islamism, it is useful to know what we are fighting. How much of the fight is between colonized minds and how much due to fundamental ideological differences. This is important because if we address Islamism the way the west does we may be scoring a goal for WU, against ourselves. We already tend to view ourselves the way the west views us. There is every possibility that we view Islam like the west does. What is the Indian view of Islam without a colonial/WU colour?

WU based criticism of Islam is mainly about the 'excesses' of Islam from a present day Christian point of view:

-One God-One prophet-One book, One language, one Vatican ( Mecca ) and other top down exclusive systems-Concept of believers and unbelievers-Finality and unchangeablility of book based beliefs-Heaven and Hell, salvation-Creationismetc.

The reason is simple. The latter list is still there in Christianity, and thus can't be criticized without having a finger pointing back at them.

In fact, the former list or 'excesses' are actually a direct result of the latter list of theological beliefs taken to the extreme. And before the advent of 'secularism' and 'western universalism', Christianity still had all of those so called 'excesses'.

abhischekcc wrote:In Hindu system, who runs the government is an incidental thing - it can be one king or another, it does not matter. Because the polity that runs the country is based on Hinduism, and that creates the balance between the various parts of society.

This may be one reason why playing up the theme of 'Islamic subjugation over 1200 years' may be a tad counterproductive and not entirely accurate. Did Islamic rule affect day-to-day Indian society in any way that was not skin-deep prior to 1500 AD. I have my doubts (other than for the NW regions of present-day Pakistan which were probably Islamized by then).

abhischekcc wrote:In Hindu system, who runs the government is an incidental thing - it can be one king or another, it does not matter. Because the polity that runs the country is based on Hinduism, and that creates the balance between the various parts of society.

This may be one reason why playing up the theme of 'Islamic subjugation over 1200 years' may be a tad counterproductive and not entirely accurate. Did Islamic rule affect day-to-day Indian society in any way that was not skin-deep prior to 1500 AD. I have my doubts (other than for the NW regions of present-day Pakistan which were probably Islamized by then).

Mogul subjugation (and to a large extent Brishit subjugation) never achieved anything much in Indian villages (Brishits did end up changing that equation with their famine based mass murder and destruction of village crafts-guild). The areas that survived the famine retained their village culture. To this day old villages in central/south central India retain that different culture which becomes apparent to anyone visiting these places.(especially in Andhra, Karnataka and Maharashtra border that I am familiar with).

That does not mean that Mogul/Brishit invasion can be washed away. The impact was at two different places and it hurt us acutely. (This is without considering the astronomical impact of Brishit "capitalism" on our village economy and the curse of uncontrolled forced urbanization of India).

1) Destruction of knowledge centers -- Takshilla, Nalanda etc This would have been done by the Brishits if not the Moguls. For any knowledge that the "holeee book" does not dictate "should not" exist and if it does so it "MUST BE" fake.

2) Brishit/White/German contribution -- Digestion of Indian knowledge to support Racist ideology.

I have mentioned this before: The brishits/Oiropeans and the Moguls to a small extent put "knowledge" at work to create weapons of destruction. For the Moguls it was a result of crusades, while for the Brishits it was a gift from getting their behinds raked by the Byzantines when they colonized Brishitland.

LokeshC wrote:Both of these parasitic locusts ended up in India to our misfortune.

India was the world's honey-pot, so entirely predictable that looting India would have been the grand prize for top-rated parasitic locusts. No revelation here...This was quite evident from even before the Christian era - and why India had to face repeated incursions both from the North-West (only available land-route into India) and South-West (Sea route, as soon as the maritime powers of Europe learned to navigate and build large ships).

One question / surprise for me is why Indian society never developed the institutional expertise to anticipate the predictable interest from parasitic locusts and develop protection mechanisms. China was more fortunate from the standpoint of one of these parasites (Islam) due to geography. The other set of parasites (European buccaneers) were rebuffed in their requests for trading rights by the Chinese for a few centuries more as compared to the Indians.

^^^There were Indian traders in Central Asia, etc., well into the Islamic era. They would have learned of the destructive tendencies of Malsi, the threat of imperialism, etc.. The "defect" has to do with how knowledge is transmitted, IMO. Just as a crude thought experiment, think of how history might be different if there were social media in the Prophet's era.

----Anyway, I came here to say that the modern philosophy behind capitalism and market economies is that it harnesses the power behind people's greed and desires. This has always bothered me - giving play to greed and unbridled desire cannot lead to human thriving. We need an alternative characterization of the economy, perhaps as a mechanism that harnesses and increases Rajas and decreases Tamas. I like to think that the "inefficiency" that is postulated to occur when markets are regulated in some way or other to mitigate their undesirable effects will no longer be seen as inefficiency when what we're optimizing is Rajas over Tamas; maybe this is just a fond belief.

In any case, I would love to see the Indic rewrite of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".

shiv wrote:When we in India fight with Islamism, it is useful to know what we are fighting. How much of the fight is between colonized minds and how much due to fundamental ideological differences. This is important because if we address Islamism the way the west does we may be scoring a goal for WU, against ourselves. We already tend to view ourselves the way the west views us. There is every possibility that we view Islam like the west does. What is the Indian view of Islam without a colonial/WU colour?

WU based criticism of Islam is mainly about the 'excesses' of Islam from a present day Christian point of view:

-One God-One prophet-One book, One language, one Vatican ( Mecca ) and other top down exclusive systems-Concept of believers and unbelievers-Finality and unchangeablility of book based beliefs-Heaven and Hell, salvation-Creationismetc.

The reason is simple. The latter list is still there in Christianity, and thus can't be criticized without having a finger pointing back at them.

In fact, the former list or 'excesses' are actually a direct result of the latter list of theological beliefs taken to the extreme. And before the advent of 'secularism' and 'western universalism', Christianity still had all of those so called 'excesses'.

Saurabh - that is a great analysis as a reply, and saves me the trouble of thinking.

-One God-One prophet-One book, One language, one Vatican ( Mecca ) and other top down exclusive systems-Concept of believers and unbelievers-Finality and unchangeablility of book based beliefs-Heaven and Hell, salvation-Creationism

It turns out that both lists A and B are not OK with Hindus

But there are some Islamic things that are OK with Hindus that have not made it into your list1. Islamic dress code2. Call to prayer 5 times a day3. The right to "be different"4. The right to form a "jati" with its own codes of conduct within its own community

Islam survived and even changed in India because it was allowed these freedoms. It was only when Islam stepped outside these bounds that it provoked anger. Even today Muslims can live happily in India because the3se rules are still respected. It is only when behaviour steps out of the community and and impinges on the rights of another community in India that Islam causes strife. In the west there is a demand on Muslims that negates the right to wear an Islamic dress, the right to call out prayers 5 x per day, the right to be different and the right to your own self-ruling community. It is violence and forced conversion that is a problem.

The treatment of women in Islam can be debated till the cows come home. All of us (indian, Hindu) have bought into the westren concept of treatment of women - so we blindly support the west against Islamic attitudes to women. islamic attitudes are certainly not great - - but giving the west a clean chit is the problem. The west only pretends that woman are equal. Biolgically men and woman cannot be equal. Sociologically and psychologically there are huge differences and unless one can allow for that we are talking rubbish when we swallow western norms for the treatment of women.

This is a subject that I would like to take up in detail in due course.

Women are recognized in Islam as being necessary for populating the world and for that reason they are given separate roles, but islam goes overboard in the manner of a tribal Bedouin religion (which is what Islam is) holding on to women in desert camps while the men go out raiding. Medieval Europe had chastity belts. Islam has virtual chastity belts in the form of laws. And now the west has gone overboard in the opposite direction - in ways that are actually not healthy for society where individual greed trumps social need.

Debating is not a problem, but actually falling to taqiya and waiting till enemies gather forces are the biggest weakness here. There is lack of push for complete annihilation of enemies and destroying enemies at their roots.

The people who need to be aware and people who need to protect society are the ones that fall to taqiya which is the problem.

shiv wrote:But there are some Islamic things that are OK with Hindus that have not made it into your list1. Islamic dress code2. Call to prayer 5 times a day3. The right to "be different"4. The right to form a "jati" with its own codes of conduct within its own community

Islam survived and even changed in India because it was allowed these freedoms. It was only when Islam stepped outside these bounds that it provoked anger. Even today Muslims can live happily in India because the3se rules are still respected. It is only when behaviour steps out of the community and and impinges on the rights of another community in India that Islam causes strife. In the west there is a demand on Muslims that negates the right to wear an Islamic dress, the right to call out prayers 5 x per day, the right to be different and the right to your own self-ruling community. It is violence and forced conversion that is a problem.

Many years ago I attended a performance in Kolkata by a Bengali muslim troupe.. it went "Allah megh de, paani de, chaya de".. something like that, in the form of a Nritya-Natak .. in short, it is basically a 'Hindu' performance with "Allah" grafted on top of it. It is just these sorts of things that make the average Hindu believe that Muslims are just a funky type of Hindus who happen to pray to "Allah" and what is wrong with that? Let them be ( 'secular' attitude )

This couldn't be further from the truth. Islam is a semitic monotheistic top down ideology encased in 7th century tribal Arab culture. If these people were transported to 7th century Saudi Arabia ( or even present day Saudi ), they would probably be getting stoned.. because it has those things which Islam thoroughly dislikes ( music, women dancing, etc. ). I mention Bengal/Bangladesh because in a geographical sense it is almost a total opposite of Saudi Arabia.. what sense does it make that both should follow some top down 'universal' things?

I will also note that top down exclusivist ideologies promote disunity rather than unity. For all the 'ummah' claims, the ummah is only united in fighting against the unbeliever and that's about it. Otherwise what is the reason there are so many Arab states? They have similar climate, same language, and so on. In fact there was an attempt at Arab nationalism early in the 20th century.. which now lies in ruins.

csaurabh wrote:I will also note that top down exclusivist ideologies promote disunity rather than unity. For all the 'ummah' claims, the ummah is only united in fighting against the unbeliever and that's about it. Otherwise what is the reason there are so many Arab states? They have similar climate, same language, and so on. In fact there was an attempt at Arab nationalism early in the 20th century.. which now lies in ruins.

Singha wrote:Brihaspati is right that ISIS is nothing special and just the progressive and natural evolution of a Sunni society left without strict state control.

as night follows day, in a few years if a 'moderate/good ISIS' faction makes its peace with the US (ie accepts bribes to tone down their violence), a purer and more radical faction of ISIS will take charge, cut down the moderates and climb the evolutionary ladder.

where this process of evolution will end nobody can predict. it will end when they are all dead or have killed everyone else.

One of the things I am starting to realize is that Hinduism is an "integrating" force. We integrate extreme diversity and find ways to live together. The key part of this is that there is no History-centricism. Resulting in acceptance of different paths, and different faiths.

History-centric monotheism is "differentiating" belief. Since history-centricity makes them refer to a common source of knowledge (or blabber ), it means that the same words in that knowledge source (bible, koran) can be interpreted differently. That results in immediate fragmentation of the followers who differentiate from each other withe labels (Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist, Hobbist, Jehovas Wittness, Mormon, Shia, Sunni, Barelvi, Wahhabandi .... list is long).

One can build a mathematical model using graph theory. It would be a tree structure. Each node killing every other one. At random intervals an existing node splits, causing the tree to increase in height and the process of war to continue. The longer the time such a religion exists, the higher/deeper the tree would be. Sometimes one node will be so powerful, it will kill all the other nodes and the process resets Ad infinitum.

There is lack of push for complete annihilation of enemies and destroying enemies at their roots.

A lot of humans in the Indian sub-continent laid their life and their families lives for the sake of those that survive today to tell the tale and remember it. We should not be self effacing and critical beyond a certain point. If anything we should remember and teach the next generation the enormous challenges faced and how we survived and more importantly why we survived. There are not too many ancient civilizations that can claim the success of survival SD can claim today. It is a testament to the framework of SD that it has this level of resilience, but that said...

Couple of quick points:

Accepting differences also means not accepting those that are different who do not accept differences SD, Caravaka, Samkhya, Mimamsa, Yoga, Jaina, Bauda, Sikh, etc. are Dharma, the others are not and cannot be!

SD is one of the few systems that has surviv(ed/es) a frontal onslaught from two different systems of centralized belief, but it has come at a great cost. This cost has been in human life, land and territory. This lesson cannot be ignored and needs to be taught.

The WUfied Indians who 'chee tu' the right wingers who battle against conversions, etc. need reeducation

The right wingers who want to blindly mimic WU and want to make SD more like WU also need reeducation

Finally, the climate, exuberance and endowment of the Indian sub-continent has made people, complacent historically, to not go out, and take the battle outside India - is a fatal flaw till date.

Here is something I wanted to post for along time. I used to look at this poster for several years in the office of a library admin in the Main stacks. One day when I went there to renew my card, I did not find it in that room any more and was told that it was a personal map of the Admin who retired and she took it down and took it away with her. I requested one of the staff members if they could track her down and see if she still had it. They got hold of her and gave the exact map reference. It was out-of-print for a long duration and just recently they (RandMac) made the prints available. Eprint is free but the poster costs in the range of $15-$50 or so (don't remember the exact price).

It is a global view of the civilizational history of the world. The important point to note is that only Indian subcontinent civilization has the continuity from the beginning. There is some discussion at slate about how scientific/accurate the map itself is. OTH, I feel it could be a starting point to motivate Indian school children to look into indian civilizational history, use it as guide for the broad time lines, and fill in the details of specific events that shaped India from the beginning of the known history. The map could be the substrate on which a mind map can be drawn as well to show interrelations with other civilizations adjoining and/or influenced by Indian civilization.

csaurabh wrote:Many years ago I attended a performance in Kolkata by a Bengali muslim troupe.. it went "Allah megh de, paani de, chaya de".. something like that, in the form of a Nritya-Natak .. in short, it is basically a 'Hindu' performance with "Allah" grafted on top of it. It is just these sorts of things that make the average Hindu believe that Muslims are just a funky type of Hindus who happen to pray to "Allah" and what is wrong with that? Let them be ( 'secular' attitude )

This couldn't be further from the truth. Islam is a semitic monotheistic top down ideology encased in 7th century tribal Arab culture. If these people were transported to 7th century Saudi Arabia ( or even present day Saudi ), they would probably be getting stoned.. because it has those things which Islam thoroughly dislikes ( music, women dancing, etc. ). I mention Bengal/Bangladesh because in a geographical sense it is almost a total opposite of Saudi Arabia.. what sense does it make that both should follow some top down 'universal' things?

People on the ground tend to do what works.

Don't know if you read that story about Ajit Doval's stint in Pakistan in disguise. As he emerged from a prayer meeting a pious looking bearded figure called out to him and said that he was a Hindu. Doval denied it, but as the story goes the bearded mullah was himseld a Pakistni Hindu living in Pakistan behaving like a local.

Muslims in India have had much more leeway than that because Indian society does not disallow worship of anything, and allows people to "be different" so long as they don't insist that their difference is the only way.

The top down system of Islam has been entirely dependent on the strength and wealth of the center. When the Caliphate was brought down by the Brits, India (I think) developed an Islamic center of gravity of its own. It was probably Gandhi who helped push Indian Muslim allegiance back towards the west by supporting the Khilafat movement - tellling Indian Muslims, in effect - "Your center lies there and you must try and get your leadership (Caliph) back in power in the west"

You cannot have Indian Muslims who abide by ancient Indian social rules that allow coexistence in India and follow top-down rules dictated from somewhere else. It turns out that the "Somewhere else" is now the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. It was precisely such conflicts in Europe that led to the creation of "secular states" where top down laws of the nation freed themselves from the top down laws of the Church - so that people had to follow the laws of the nation rather than the church. The "national law" in India is not a top down system. It is a bottom up system that gives a lot of autonomy to the periphery. This law must be followed by everyone in India. An unbroken law that has existed in India for 5000 years is that no single "God" will be declared as being the top dog. Any coercion or claims to the contrary are dismissed outright. Even in India no one can claim that Shiva is supreme and not Vishnu etc. So Allah and Jehovah get only so much rope and no more.

"Western Universalism" cannot understand this concept - which is more secular than secularism. Because WU is the aulad of colonialism, colonial attitudes that saw "Hinduism as a religion" clouds people's minds and they think a religion is being pushed on everyone and that "minorities" cannot practice their faith. They can, but within the national law. the national law does not allow any "God" to be forcibly imposed as the only one.

There is one more huge difference betwen the way "secularism" under WU is practised. It seems that secularism/atheism/agnosticism have got thesmelves into a lungi dance with religions where they compete with each other. There is this ridiculous scenario of creationsist fighting scientists in the field of education with each claiming "Mine is bigger". This should not have happened at all. Every viewpoint has a place and only the truth will prevail. The act of fighting needs to be fought.

Similarly, the way the west deals with Islam is crazy. They have no problems with "mine is bigger" proselytization, creation etc but they worry aboout superficial things like wearing different clothes and state of shaving.

The point is that India has its own viewpoint and its own way of dealing with the challenges posed by the monotheistic religions and a blind following of the "lead" by WU that simply tries to discard religion or insult religion as a variant of "freedom" is probably not the way Indians would behave. So even when we find ourselves on the same side as WU when it comes to the behaviour of radical Islam, our ways of dealing with it need not be the same as that of the west. This IMO requires further exploration

Islam is a semitic monotheistic top down ideology encased in 7th century tribal Arab culture.

Frankly from all what i have read, Arab tribal culture was pretty open in the 7th century. The culture indeed may have had the natural pitfalls that all cultures in the region and beyond may have had, but it was open. They worshipped Idols in Mecca, women were liberated and did business, were poets which goes to show that women weren't suppressed one bit. Islam changed a lot of traditional Arab culture. I think most people say 7th century Arab culture with a lot of condescension and based on assumptions flowing out possibly with the justification of the influx of excluvist faith. The same narrative for India is painted by those trying to justify Excluvist faith over pluralist Dharmic tradition. I do agree with most of your post, but felt like pointing out this often used condescension of Arab culture of the 7th century.

^^^ Yes, very much evident from the early part of the Prophet's life, as depicted in the earliest biographies. The young Muhammad was an employee of Khadijah's business; she was 10-15 years older than Muhammad, and she proposed marriage to him.

That is interesting, didn't know that. I was using 7th century Arabs to describe Taliban/ISIS/Wahabi types.

In any case the concept is the same. Subcontinental muslims are trying to be arabs? Because some idiot from a middle eastern desert centuries ago decided that he wanted a 'universal' religion to apply to everyone? Come on.

I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the link I provide but I do recall reading (in Raphael Patai's book on the Arab Mind that Islamic culture is derived from Bedouin culture. Hence I searched for ancient Bedouin culture and found this:

Bedouin lifestyle involved migrating with their herds in search of pasture, supplying their produce to the oases markets, raiding the settled communities and the trade caravans that crossed the desert and levying tolls from them. There was no private ownership of land as each tribe held its pastures and water sources communally. Bedouin society was characterised by a fierce loyalty to family, clan and tribe which triggered blood feuds and demanded revenge killings. They had a rigid code of honour in which the chastity of their women was very important and which included hospitality and generousity.

Poetry was their greatest artistic attainment. Their poems celebrated heroic deeds of the tribe and its warriors and were recited around the camp fires. They were passed down orally from generation to generation.

The tribal chief was the Sheikh who was elected by the elders and was advised by a council of elders called the Majlis. He ruled by virtue of his personality and the respect it engendered, by negotiation, consensus and arbitration rather than by dictat. The office of Sheikh was often limited to a noble family, and did not pass automatically to the eldest son, but was open to any suitable member of the family who could gain the approval of the elders. This system could lead to violent quarrels between brothers.

The custommary law of the ancestors, called the Sunnah, regulated all affairs of life in Bedouin society. A very important custom was blood vengeance which ordained that the relatives of a murdered man must kill the murderer or one of his relatives in revenge. The negotiated acceptance of blood money as compensation was the only way to stop the feud.

Mecca was the most important town in Arabia as its shrine, the Ka'ba, contained some 360 idols and served as a pilgrimage centre for all tribes. It was also an important trading town.

Reading PB Mehta's latest piece of bilge - I am amazed that I used to like this guy at one point. His pretentious & pontificatory rhetoric combined with his inability to put forward any logical or concrete argument only manages to jar nowadays.

And he's supposed to be heading one of India's premier think tanks !! Ridiculous.